Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1979Raj58; 1977()WLN348
..... ram got an order in his favour from the collector, sriganganagar on 13-10-1959 that the land in question was his personal property under section 23 (2) of the land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952. it was then entered as his khatedari land. the petitioners nos. 2 and 3, namely; smt. rami devi w/o shri sheo ..... of ladhuram when he was a member of the legislative assembly. 6. in dealing with the preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon chandmal's case (air 1968 raj 20), while the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon nathmal v. commissioner civil supplies, 1951 raj lw 467 and upon jas raj v. state of rajasthan, 1976 ..... rules which was inserted on 9-10-1964 and in view of the decision of the division bench of this court in chandmal naurat mal v. state of rajasthan, air 1968 raj 20; (2) the petitioner has concealed facts and the petitioner having not come with clean hands, the petition should be thrown out. 2. in village dulmana, tehsil .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998(1)WLN480
..... case law indicated above, the following principles are clearly discernible:(1) it is the duty of the court to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner as to harmonise them.(2) the provisions of one ..... contravention of the statutory rules. however, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. (vide commissioner of income tax v. a. raman & co. : [1968]67itr11(sc) ; union of india and ors. v. majji jangammya and ors. : [1977]2scr28 ; ramendra singh and ors. v. jagdish prasad and ors. : [1984]2scr598 ; p.d ..... cannot, in exercise of its executive powers under article 162 of the constitution, ignore or act contrary to that rule or the act.20. similarly, another constitution bench of the hon'ble supreme court, in sant ram sharma v. state of rajasthan and ors. : (1968)iillj830sc , has observed as under:it is true that the government cannot amend or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(4)WLN393
..... ' which amounted to retreat from their previous commitments. notification was issued with retrospective effect on 1.11.1966 and restricted the benefits of military service upto 10.1.1968 i.e. the date on which the first emergency was lifted with the result that the vested rights which accrued to the petitioners in 1969, 1970 and 1971 had ..... of the said proceedings. we do not, therefore, find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the law as amended by the u.p.act 26 of 1975 should have been followed in the present case.14. in the case of state of andhra pradesh and ors. v. j. sreenivasa rao and ors. ..... however, provide expressly that the amendment in question would apply to pending proceedings under section 16-f of the act. nor do we find any words in it which by necessary intendment would affect such pending proceedings. the process of selection under section 16-f of the act commencing from the stage of calling for applications for a post upto the date .....
Tag this Judgment!